I agree, it should not be called ODF 1.3 until there is a full
standards-track CSD on the way to becoming a Committee Specification.
I think they should simply be ODF CSD's, with progressive numbering (e.g.,
continue beyond CSD07 if we take CSD07 to Committee Specification as
expected).
It would be even better if we could somehow treat these CSDs as provisional
supplements to ODF 1.2 until we roll them out as ODF-next. (The version
could indicate use of supplements in some manner when produced in documents,
perhaps office:version="1.2+CSD08" or some-such, although the processing of
version identifications would become more complicated (and is probably
something that CSD08 needs to deal with). [Note: The current definition of
the generator string says it should not be used to distinguish features of
implementation versions by design, so we should not mess with that.]
It would be even better if we could do some CSDs *as* supplements, avoiding
the need to reissue the full set of ODF documents every time when the CSDs
might offer only relatively-localized changes. This should also take a lot
of friction out of the desire to provide CSDs on regular, relatively-short
cycles.
I am not at all sure how the TC Process could handle this sort of thing, but
it seems sufficiently better for the labors of TC volunteers and for
reviewers and developers that it is worth finding out.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas J. Guelzow [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 06:38
To: Michael Brauer
Cc: ;
Subject: Re: [office] Thoughts on ODF-Next
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 03:59 -0700, Michael Brauer wrote:
